The trailer is excellent, and well judged, not simply repeating and expanding the content of the other trailers, but giving just a little more, not too much, and I think possibly a rather well judged in joke from nolan, 'incepting' the idea of people wondering where else he can take them viewing wise...

You've given them everything.

Not everything. Not yet.

But whatever, the strength of this trailer is (to me) mainly in the music, just watch it with the headphones up loud, isolating you from the world, listen to that music build and develop under what are not that detailed moments from the film, it really begins to feel like a storm really is coming, and when it does, it's gonna hurt.

The trailer is an art form few exploit well, Nolan's seem more aimed at provoking the emotion he wants you to feel, rather than letting your eyes know what they're going to see, setting up the frame of mind for the viewing experience before you ever get anywhere near the day you watch the film. And given the sense of panic I felt watching TDK the first time because of the skill with which I felt Nolan teased out the fear of what might happen next, and then blowing up the damsel in distress to say 'I WILL go there'), who knows how gruelling it could be to see Batman incapacitated. The child in you doesn't really want to see that, and I think a lot of people will be taken by surprise by how emotionally affected and helpless they are going to feel when they see it.

Nolan is very over-rated and hasn't lived up to potential of the wonderful Following and Memento unfortunately.

This is a bizarre statement, given the characterisation problems of TDK & Inception could just as easily be attributed to some of the figureheads in Following & Memento as well.

Not sure what you mean, can you give an example? My point is simply that Following and Memento hold together much better as movies - smart and sophisticated, low on indulgent cliches where as TDK or Inception feel bloated, cliche ridden and full of plot holes (TDK in particluar) and pretentious - trying to dress comic book nonsense up as art house sophistication. The Prestige was pretty good but the praise heaped upon TDK and Inception is far in excess of their actual merits. Really, a basic analysis of the plot and character motivations in the TDK does not stand much scrutiny (e.g. - the ludicrous plan to fake Gordon's death so as to arrest the Joker who all the time wanted to be arrested so he can get into custody where the security measures amount to one middle aged unarmed man in the cell with you!! All of which could never have been anticipated by any of the various characters. All the Jokers plans are by a man without a plan - an agent of chaos - yet clearly would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee. All Joker's goons are unquestioningly loyal even when he consistently betrays them; Fox has moral qualms about phone hacking for Batman's Sonar thingy but is fine to supply him with a Tank Batmobile... etc, etc... A quick google search will summarise them better than I can here)

I still don't really understand what the hell they did there with the finger print thingy.

It makes no sense on any level. Sonar doesnt work like that either.

It's a Nolan worship thing. If they can't understand it, that means the movie is extremely clever. Same happened with Inception, people raved about how intelligent it was and how much of a mindfuck it was. No it just didn't make sense and had made-up science. Other than, very simple plotline.

OH NO!!!! Comic book movies use, comic book science as plot devices, whatever will these unscrupulous film makers do next! Someone call the cops....

I'd have no problem with it using comic book science if they didn't tout it as being "realistic" and "grounded in reality" etc.

He's never claimed that his films are real or 100% scientifically accurate, it's people wanting a stick to beat him with that seem to have been labouring under that misapprehension.

Sure you don't like his films or his style, that's fine, but at least have an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

Rubbish! Despite your quote, Nolan and his collaborators have frequently stated that they wanted these Batman films to be grounded in reality with a more realistic tone. To deny this is simply to ignore very well publicised facts. Just because that realism isn't "100%" (whatever that would mean) doesn't change anything. The tone is generally more realistic with various comic book tropes given more believable explanations except unfortunately the tone is not consistent and sometimes veers off from their initial intentions. I think the sonar and the finger print nonsense are good examples of this.

On the other hand, 'grounding in realism' is as much about making the audience have a genuine reaction to the events as opposed to a 'it a super hero film' reaction. The aftermath of Rachel's death in TDK and Barbara Gordon's reaction to 'losing' Jim, are a case in point. The latter, Barvara screaming YOU DID THIS at Batman and him bowing his head, believing it to be true is more about realism than the absolutely hokey premise of a man dressing up as a bat to fight crime. Nolan's achievement is to make the films more than that. From young Bruce's reaction to his parents death, (It's my fault, Alfred) to 'Alfred!! Help me!!' and lots more, comes the heart of the films.

I still don't really understand what the hell they did there with the finger print thingy.

It makes no sense on any level. Sonar doesnt work like that either.

It's a Nolan worship thing. If they can't understand it, that means the movie is extremely clever. Same happened with Inception, people raved about how intelligent it was and how much of a mindfuck it was. No it just didn't make sense and had made-up science. Other than, very simple plotline.

OH NO!!!! Comic book movies use, comic book science as plot devices, whatever will these unscrupulous film makers do next! Someone call the cops....

I'd have no problem with it using comic book science if they didn't tout it as being "realistic" and "grounded in reality" etc.

He's never claimed that his films are real or 100% scientifically accurate, it's people wanting a stick to beat him with that seem to have been labouring under that misapprehension.

Sure you don't like his films or his style, that's fine, but at least have an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

Rubbish! Despite your quote, Nolan and his collaborators have frequently stated that they wanted these Batman films to be grounded in reality with a more realistic tone. To deny this is simply to ignore very well publicised facts. Just because that realism isn't "100%" (whatever that would mean) doesn't change anything. The tone is generally more realistic with various comic book tropes given more believable explanations except unfortunately the tone is not consistent and sometimes veers off from their initial intentions. I think the sonar and the finger print nonsense are good examples of this.

I'm sorry, where have I denied that Nolan and his collaboraters have not grounded (their films) in reality? I've simply offered a quote where the man himself has explained what he means by that.

I will refer you to Joblofski below for a nice succinct rationale.

I can't be bothered to go over specific plot points and their stretching of credibility in a film about a man who dresses up as a giant bat to fight crime on the streets of a fictional city. I'm sure there are at least 100 examples of this type of exagerrated detective work in every episode of every cop drama ever made.

Nolan took away the more fantastical elements from the comic, that in itself is giving the films a more realistic tone add to the fact the use of practical effects work at every opportunity. I really don't see the point either its like moaning about the gadgets in Bond.

ORIGINAL: Kayotik I'd have no problem with it using comic book science if they didn't tout it as being "realistic" and "grounded in reality" etc.

This is a fairly ridiculous statement to be honest. All of Nolan's Batman films are pure fantasy wrapped up in a fairly grounded approach. If you extrapolate the idea of someone, in real life, dressing up as a bat and driving around the streets in a tank then it all sounds exceedingly stupid. But Nolan's approach is so successful that people buy the more 'grounded' nature of the films. I don't think the word 'realistic' is a suitable one. Because they clearly aren't realitic situations and scenarios.

_____________________________

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift...that's why they call it the present.

You implied Inception & The Dark Knight have character motivations that were unrealistic, yet the antagonist in Following & Teddy in Memento both do things that are very questionable in the specific circumstances that they're in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

My point is simply that Following and Memento hold together much better as movies - smart and sophisticated, low on indulgent cliches where as TDK or Inception feel bloated, cliche ridden and full of plot holes (TDK in particluar) and pretentious - trying to dress comic book nonsense up as art house sophistication.

Why? Because one's based on a comic book character and the other has explosions in them? Does having those things automatically diminish the intelligent aspects of both Inception & the Dark Knight? Does that mean that with their origins they have to be inherently stupid & dumb? With a statement like that, one would argue you're the one being pretentious.

Furthermore, what are these clichés you speak of? Wobbly writing in places yes, but clichés?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

The Prestige was pretty good but the praise heaped upon TDK and Inception is far in excess of their actual merits. Really, a basic analysis of the plot and character motivations in the TDK does not stand much scrutiny (e.g. - the ludicrous plan to fake Gordon's death so as to arrest the Joker who all the time wanted to be arrested so he can get into custody where the security measures amount to one middle aged unarmed man in the cell with you!! All of which could never have been anticipated by any of the various characters.

It's not a breath-taking piece of writing, but it's a small cog in a big machine. It is also plausible given the fact the Joker had declared his intention to assassinate the major, so it's conceivable Gordon had a play in mind should an attempt on his life be made. I'll admit I had a slight problem with this plot device as well, but it's hardly fatal to the overall success of the story.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

All the Jokers plans are by a man without a plan - an agent of chaos - yet clearly would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee.

Remember his 3 "you know where I got these scars" stories? They're all different. He's a bullshitter. Nothing that comes out of his mouth can be trusted whatsoever. Surely you must have noticed that? Surely you're not taking his "I'm an agent of chaos" statement at face value? It seems like if you were an inhabitant of Gotham, the Joker would hoodwink you into deception as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo All Joker's goons are unquestioningly loyal even when he consistently betrays them;

We never really see an example of this unquestionable loyalty that you speak of. He prays on weak minds & those motivated solely by money. That is pretty much executed to a tee.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

Fox has moral qualms about phone hacking for Batman's Sonar thingy but is fine to supply him with a Tank Batmobile... etc, etc... A quick google search will summarise them better than I can here)

One is an intrusion of social liberties, the other is supplying him with a big 'fuck off' vehicle. How are they relatable whatsoever?

I still don't really understand what the hell they did there with the finger print thingy.

It makes no sense on any level. Sonar doesnt work like that either.

It's a Nolan worship thing. If they can't understand it, that means the movie is extremely clever. Same happened with Inception, people raved about how intelligent it was and how much of a mindfuck it was. No it just didn't make sense and had made-up science. Other than, very simple plotline.

I went into Inception expecting to be really confused... amazingly, I found that if you just watch what happens, the narrative develops and then you understand what's going on- weird, eh? The fingerprint thing, yeah - I didn't understand, but I didn't think the film was better because I didn't understand it, I just thought it was one stupid moment in an otherwise excellent film,, but if you're still confused, this sums it up, although it's still impossible and ridiculous:

1. Batman takes a piece of concrete containing all the pieces of the shattered bullet since that is what he will need at the end.

2. The gunshots were to test different bullet types in hopes of finding what type of bullet was used by (a) matching the hole size made in the concrete and (b) matching the wave patterns between the two blocks of concrete through sonar.

3. Once the bullet type was determined, Fox's new type of sonar imaging was used in visualizing the bullet fragments and allowing them to be recombined to match the known bullet type. (a) Why the image could be gathered at the new Batcave but only be pieced together at Wayne Enterprises is unclear. (b) It is a plot point which allows the sonar device to resonate an image of a fingerprint since the oil found on someone's skin would not be picked up that easily (or clearly) by a soundwave.

4. The fingerprint is matched to all possible suspects who have their fingerprints on file.

5. Of the four, the one they chose (Melvin White) had a known address which was on the procession route for the funeral march.

_____________________________

"Now i don't know much about security lighting, but i'm guessing they'll be using 180-degree dispersing halogens with motion sensors"

The trailer is excellent, and well judged, not simply repeating and expanding the content of the other trailers, but giving just a little more, not too much, and I think possibly a rather well judged in joke from nolan, 'incepting' the idea of people wondering where else he can take them viewing wise...

You've given them everything.

Not everything. Not yet.

But whatever, the strength of this trailer is (to me) mainly in the music, just watch it with the headphones up loud, isolating you from the world, listen to that music build and develop under what are not that detailed moments from the film, it really begins to feel like a storm really is coming, and when it does, it's gonna hurt.

The trailer is an art form few exploit well, Nolan's seem more aimed at provoking the emotion he wants you to feel, rather than letting your eyes know what they're going to see, setting up the frame of mind for the viewing experience before you ever get anywhere near the day you watch the film. And given the sense of panic I felt watching TDK the first time because of the skill with which I felt Nolan teased out the fear of what might happen next, and then blowing up the damsel in distress to say 'I WILL go there'), who knows how gruelling it could be to see Batman incapacitated. The child in you doesn't really want to see that, and I think a lot of people will be taken by surprise by how emotionally affected and helpless they are going to feel when they see it.

Excellent post!

_____________________________

Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift...that's why they call it the present.

Sure you don't like his films or his style, that's fine, but at least have an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

That's the funny thing about opinion, it's a personal thing that often can not be backed up with facts and figures because it's down to how a person feels. It's also extremely doubtful I'm going to be able to convince you to feel the same way I do because you have your own opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darth Marenghi

Moving away from the intricacies/implausibilities of Nolan's plotting for a moment, anyone have any thoughts on who should play Batman Mk. 5? I'm genuinely stumped on candidates this time round.

I'd have loved Hugh Jackman to have played Wayne/Batman instead of Bale originally, though he's probably a bit too old now. He could play the suave, charming billionaire Wayne very easily and the dark, troubled shadow that is Batman with a deep voice that required no growling or rawring to intimidate.

Sure you don't like his films or his style, that's fine, but at least have an argument that stands up to scrutiny.

That's the funny thing about opinion, it's a personal thing that often can not be backed up with facts and figures because it's down to how a person feels. It's also extremely doubtful I'm going to be able to convince you to feel the same way I do because you have your own opinion.

That's fair enough but you were basing your opinion/argument on an erroneous conclusion about the meaning of what Nolan et-al are doing by "grounding in reality" (as many other forum members have also pointed out).

ORIGINAL: Kayotik I'd have no problem with it using comic book science if they didn't tout it as being "realistic" and "grounded in reality" etc.

This is a fairly ridiculous statement to be honest. All of Nolan's Batman films are pure fantasy wrapped up in a fairly grounded approach. If you extrapolate the idea of someone, in real life, dressing up as a bat and driving around the streets in a tank then it all sounds exceedingly stupid. But Nolan's approach is so successful that people buy the more 'grounded' nature of the films. I don't think the word 'realistic' is a suitable one. Because they clearly aren't realitic situations and scenarios.

"The world of Batman is that of grounded reality," he says. Burton's and Schumacher's visions were idiosyncratic and unreal. Nolan says, "Ours will be a recognizable, contemporary reality against which an extraordinary heroic figure arises."'

So I don't think Kayotik's statement is ridiculous at all. But your insistence on claiming Nolan had other ideas is odd. Sounds like you should read up on what the man himself has to say about his own movies.

You implied Inception & The Dark Knight have character motivations that were unrealistic, yet the antagonist in Following & Teddy in Memento both do things that are very questionable in the specific circumstances that they're in.

In the context of the earlier movies their motivations don't intrude on the dynamic of the story in a way that breaks the illusion. In the later movies (TDK in particular) the motivations of Dent and Batman and of course the Joker are incoherent in the extreme and seem designed simply to get us to the next plot twist. There is good list of these here :http://lhote.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/dark-knight-plot-hole-repository.html and a more detailed account here: http://therawness.com/why-i-hated-the-dark-knight/

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

My point is simply that Following and Memento hold together much better as movies - smart and sophisticated, low on indulgent cliches where as TDK or Inception feel bloated, cliche ridden and full of plot holes (TDK in particluar) and pretentious - trying to dress comic book nonsense up as art house sophistication.

Why? Because one's based on a comic book character and the other has explosions in them? Does having those things automatically diminish the intelligent aspects of both Inception & the Dark Knight? Does that mean that with their origins they have to be inherently stupid & dumb? With a statement like that, one would argue you're the one being pretentious.

Furthermore, what are these clichés you speak of? Wobbly writing in places yes, but clichés?

No. Not because one is based on comic books or has explosions. I have nothing against either of these. Heat has guns and explosions and is an intelligent thriller. A History of Violence was based on a graphic novel and is a great movie. Star Wars, SpiderMan, Avengers Assemble etc lots of examples of pop culture entertainment of a very high standard - all fine in my book since they don't pretend to be what they're not. They are openly fantasies. They are openly FUN. My point is that TDN pretends to be more than just comic book fun. It has aspirations to art-house or serious thriller genres. Yet when one applies the criteria one would normally judge those more serious films by to TDN it doesn't hold up. Too many plot holes. Too many impossible plot twists. How does the Joker rig the hospitals to blow so quick? How does the Joker set up the Ferry situation so quick? How could the Joker know that firing on Dent in the chase scene would lead to Dent surviving (so he could later kidnap him - how did he arrange that so efficiently??) and him being imprisoned as he'd wanted all along? Why not jut walk into the police station as in Seven? In a movie like Avengers one simply goes along with it because the tone of the movie is light, unpretentious and openly 'comic book'. It doesn't ask to be taken too seriously. TDN has serious themes and heavy duty ideas about morality and violence and terrorism and society... but on closer scrutiny none of it holds much water. As for clichés; I'm not going to provide you with a list. But one that always gets me in action movies is the idea that cars are really soft bouncy safety cushions for falling on and if one lands on one from a great height it doesn't hurt. Batman and Rachel fall from the top of a very tall building and I know he uses his cape to slow that fall but it's still rubbish that the car cushions the landing. The Joker's unflinching walk from the exploding building. The courtroom scenes - prosecutors behaving in ways that would never be allowed but, hey, it looks good in movies. Henchmen - the Joker's henchmen are a complete movie cliché - unquestioningly loyal thugs who are anonymous and easily disposed of...etc, etc.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

The Prestige was pretty good but the praise heaped upon TDK and Inception is far in excess of their actual merits. Really, a basic analysis of the plot and character motivations in the TDK does not stand much scrutiny (e.g. - the ludicrous plan to fake Gordon's death so as to arrest the Joker who all the time wanted to be arrested so he can get into custody where the security measures amount to one middle aged unarmed man in the cell with you!! All of which could never have been anticipated by any of the various characters.

It's not a breath-taking piece of writing, but it's a small cog in a big machine. It is also plausible given the fact the Joker had declared his intention to assassinate the major, so it's conceivable Gordon had a play in mind should an attempt on his life be made. I'll admit I had a slight problem with this plot device as well, but it's hardly fatal to the overall success of the story.

See the links above for more on the endless holes in the plot.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

All the Jokers plans are by a man without a plan - an agent of chaos - yet clearly would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee.

Remember his 3 "you know where I got these scars" stories? They're all different. He's a bullshitter. Nothing that comes out of his mouth can be trusted whatsoever. Surely you must have noticed that? Surely you're not taking his "I'm an agent of chaos" statement at face value? It seems like if you were an inhabitant of Gotham, the Joker would hoodwink you into deception as well.

Yeah, I noticed he's a bit trixy that Joker... It doesnt change a thing I said. To repeat: All the Joker's plans would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo All Joker's goons are unquestioningly loyal even when he consistently betrays them;

We never really see an example of this unquestionable loyalty that you speak of. He prays on weak minds & those motivated solely by money. That is pretty much executed to a tee.

Come now. All the Joker's plans necessarily require outside help as they would be impossible to enact by himself, indeed some of them take place while he is in custody! So, implicit throughout, is the obvious need for goons to help him; to rig the hospital, kidnap Dent/Rachel rob the banks, drive trucks, reload bazookas, do various dirty work etc, etc.... Not one of them wakes up to the obvious fact that he keeps screwing them over and burning money in front of them!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: fiercehairdo

Fox has moral qualms about phone hacking for Batman's Sonar thingy but is fine to supply him with a Tank Batmobile... etc, etc... A quick google search will summarise them better than I can here)

One is an intrusion of social liberties, the other is supplying him with a big 'fuck off' vehicle. How are they relatable whatsoever?

The point is that the moralising is totally confused! Fox takes a strong moral stance on issues of privacy but supplying armoured vehicles, weapons and other tech to vigilantes - that's OK?? You can't see how his ethics are a little inconsistent here?? It makes his stance at the end of TDN look somewhat ridiculous and empty. For a supposed moral character like Fox the dangers of heavily armoured vehicles etc in the hands of a vigilante is surely higher than phone hacking. It makes no sense. It renders his character incoherent in his beliefs and is obviously there to facilitate another ridiculous lazy plot turn.

Yeah Dark Knight had quite a few confusing parts...why does Batman decide to take the fall for Dent's murder? I mean the whole idea was preserving Dent's reputation so that the people of Gotham wouldn't lose hope in a brighter future...which was what Batman was supposed to be inspiring as well...so when he spends so long terrifying criminals and then makes it seem like he randomly decided to kill "Gotham's White Knight" then what faith are the people of Gotham supposed to feel?!

Also how did that mobster manage to smuggle in a gun to a courtroom? (That conveniently jams when pulled on Dent.)

Also when Batman jumps out the window to save Rachel and they somehow survive such a fall so easily...he leaves Joker in a party full of guests he was already about to start torturing in order to find out where Dent was...

You implied Inception & The Dark Knight have character motivations that were unrealistic, yet the antagonist in Following & Teddy in Memento both do things that are very questionable in the specific circumstances that they're in.

In the context of the earlier movies their motivations don't intrude on the dynamic of the story in a way that breaks the illusion. In the later movies (TDK in particular) the motivations of Dent and Batman and of course the Joker are incoherent in the extreme and seem designed simply to get us to the next plot twist. There is good list of these here :http://lhote.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/dark-knight-plot-hole-repository.html and a more detailed account here: http://therawness.com/why-i-hated-the-dark-knight/

My point is simply that Following and Memento hold together much better as movies - smart and sophisticated, low on indulgent cliches where as TDK or Inception feel bloated, cliche ridden and full of plot holes (TDK in particluar) and pretentious - trying to dress comic book nonsense up as art house sophistication.

Why? Because one's based on a comic book character and the other has explosions in them? Does having those things automatically diminish the intelligent aspects of both Inception & the Dark Knight? Does that mean that with their origins they have to be inherently stupid & dumb? With a statement like that, one would argue you're the one being pretentious.

Furthermore, what are these clichés you speak of? Wobbly writing in places yes, but clichés?

No. Not because one is based on comic books or has explosions. I have nothing against either of these. Heat has guns and explosions and is an intelligent thriller. A History of Violence was based on a graphic novel and is a great movie. Star Wars, SpiderMan, Avengers Assemble etc lots of examples of pop culture entertainment of a very high standard - all fine in my book since they don't pretend to be what they're not. They are openly fantasies. They are openly FUN. My point is that TDN pretends to be more than just comic book fun. It has aspirations to art-house or serious thriller genres. Yet when one applies the criteria one would normally judge those more serious films by to TDN it doesn't hold up. Too many plot holes. Too many impossible plot twists. How does the Joker rig the hospitals to blow so quick? How does the Joker set up the Ferry situation so quick? How could the Joker know that firing on Dent in the chase scene would lead to Dent surviving (so he could later kidnap him - how did he arrange that so efficiently??) and him being imprisoned as he'd wanted all along? Why not jut walk into the police station as in Seven? In a movie like Avengers one simply goes along with it because the tone of the movie is light, unpretentious and openly 'comic book'. It doesn't ask to be taken too seriously. TDN has serious themes and heavy duty ideas about morality and violence and terrorism and society... but on closer scrutiny none of it holds much water. As for clichés; I'm not going to provide you with a list. But one that always gets me in action movies is the idea that cars are really soft bouncy safety cushions for falling on and if one lands on one from a great height it doesn't hurt. Batman and Rachel fall from the top of a very tall building and I know he uses his cape to slow that fall but it's still rubbish that the car cushions the landing. The Joker's unflinching walk from the exploding building. The courtroom scenes - prosecutors behaving in ways that would never be allowed but, hey, it looks good in movies. Henchmen - the Joker's henchmen are a complete movie cliché - unquestioningly loyal thugs who are anonymous and easily disposed of...etc, etc.

The Prestige was pretty good but the praise heaped upon TDK and Inception is far in excess of their actual merits. Really, a basic analysis of the plot and character motivations in the TDK does not stand much scrutiny (e.g. - the ludicrous plan to fake Gordon's death so as to arrest the Joker who all the time wanted to be arrested so he can get into custody where the security measures amount to one middle aged unarmed man in the cell with you!! All of which could never have been anticipated by any of the various characters.

It's not a breath-taking piece of writing, but it's a small cog in a big machine. It is also plausible given the fact the Joker had declared his intention to assassinate the major, so it's conceivable Gordon had a play in mind should an attempt on his life be made. I'll admit I had a slight problem with this plot device as well, but it's hardly fatal to the overall success of the story.

See the links above for more on the endless holes in the plot.

All the Jokers plans are by a man without a plan - an agent of chaos - yet clearly would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee.

Remember his 3 "you know where I got these scars" stories? They're all different. He's a bullshitter. Nothing that comes out of his mouth can be trusted whatsoever. Surely you must have noticed that? Surely you're not taking his "I'm an agent of chaos" statement at face value? It seems like if you were an inhabitant of Gotham, the Joker would hoodwink you into deception as well.

Yeah, I noticed he's a bit trixy that Joker... It doesnt change a thing I said. To repeat: All the Joker's plans would have required MONTHS of planning to orchestrate and depend on events that would be impossible to foresee.

All Joker's goons are unquestioningly loyal even when he consistently betrays them;

We never really see an example of this unquestionable loyalty that you speak of. He prays on weak minds & those motivated solely by money. That is pretty much executed to a tee.

Come now. All the Joker's plans necessarily require outside help as they would be impossible to enact by himself, indeed some of them take place while he is in custody! So, implicit throughout, is the obvious need for goons to help him; to rig the hospital, kidnap Dent/Rachel rob the banks, drive trucks, reload bazookas, do various dirty work etc, etc.... Not one of them wakes up to the obvious fact that he keeps screwing them over and burning money in front of them!

Fox has moral qualms about phone hacking for Batman's Sonar thingy but is fine to supply him with a Tank Batmobile... etc, etc... A quick google search will summarise them better than I can here)

One is an intrusion of social liberties, the other is supplying him with a big 'fuck off' vehicle. How are they relatable whatsoever?

The point is that the moralising is totally confused! Fox takes a strong moral stance on issues of privacy but supplying armoured vehicles, weapons and other tech to vigilantes - that's OK?? You can't see how his ethics are a little inconsistent here?? It makes his stance at the end of TDN look somewhat ridiculous and empty. For a supposed moral character like Fox the dangers of heavily armoured vehicles etc in the hands of a vigilante is surely higher than phone hacking. It makes no sense. It renders his character incoherent in his beliefs and is obviously there to facilitate another ridiculous lazy plot turn.

I can't really be bothered going through your points one by one. Because to be honest, you're nitpicking & by the sounds of it, will refuse to be swayed on your point of view which I conclude is predominantly unreasonable.

The Joker is a criminal mastermind. Every comic book, cartoon, television episode or film he's been involved in has demonstrated that. Because of your frustrations, we would have to have an extra hour (maybe even two hours) of how he rigged up a hospital to explode & determine how all his plans would be mapped out. Is that really necessary? Had Nolan gone for the same tone as Joel Schmacher, would you be demanding the same answers? If the joker could fly & turn his adverseries to dust by going "shazaam", would you be so bothered by it? Your logic seems to be that because it's "grounded in reality" everything has to be justified & mapped out on camera. That's just silly. You're confusing plot holes with exposition that occurs off camera, yet is held back for dramatic effect.

Furthermore, the burning money in front of them happens once, and that happens towards the end of the film. Why do the goons not rise up against them? Perhaps they're weak-minded. Perhaps they've been given incentives to tow a specific line. Perhaps they're just fucking terrified of what he's capable of & see him as their best chance of being able to live another day. It could be a number of things, but again, your argument is nitpicking.

As for Fox, he's not giving tech just to any vigilante. He's giving it to Bruce Wayne/Batman because he believes in his cause & his character. In his eyes, the phone hacking aspect is going too far. Seriously, why is this so problematic? Again, this is nitpicking.

As for landing on a car bonnet, well, Bats has a cape that softens the blow of impact, if you recall?

To sum up, your entire complaint of TDK is because it chooses to ground itself in a more reality-based world, yet still falls into trappings of the fantastical. I've got news for you pal, this a film about a man dressed in a bat suit & fights crime! It's not Ken Loach social commentary. Just because there's a tone and a set of themes that resonate with a more grounded world like our own, that doesn't necessarily mean that it must abide by complete & total realism. You either accept that or you don't. Clearly you don't, yet I feel your criticisms of this circumstance are largely unfair & based on issues that could be attributed to every single vigilante / superhero etc film that has ever been released.

Are we all forgetting Batman wears armour. I always assumed it was his armour and the cape slowing him down that saves them. If you start thinking the car cushions the fall then yeah it does start to sound pretty ridiculous.

We could pick out plot holes of every film ever created, it's a film, suspension of disbelief is paramount when watching any film, if we started having every minor plot detail explained to us on screen watching films would be a very boring experience indeed !!

Yeah Dark Knight had quite a few confusing parts...why does Batman decide to take the fall for Dent's murder? I mean the whole idea was preserving Dent's reputation so that the people of Gotham wouldn't lose hope in a brighter future...which was what Batman was supposed to be inspiring as well...so when he spends so long terrifying criminals and then makes it seem like he randomly decided to kill "Gotham's White Knight" then what faith are the people of Gotham supposed to feel?!

Also how did that mobster manage to smuggle in a gun to a courtroom? (That conveniently jams when pulled on Dent.)

Also when Batman jumps out the window to save Rachel and they somehow survive such a fall so easily...he leaves Joker in a party full of guests he was already about to start torturing in order to find out where Dent was...

You're just being silly and trolling now...

Maybe you should head over to the unpopular opionions thread and start an "I hate Nolan - anyone agree" discusssion.

Yeah Dark Knight had quite a few confusing parts...why does Batman decide to take the fall for Dent's murder? I mean the whole idea was preserving Dent's reputation so that the people of Gotham wouldn't lose hope in a brighter future...which was what Batman was supposed to be inspiring as well...so when he spends so long terrifying criminals and then makes it seem like he randomly decided to kill "Gotham's White Knight" then what faith are the people of Gotham supposed to feel?!

To quote Bats, he's anything Gotham needs him to be. The whole point of TDK is that Gotham's faith in Batman is constantly pushed to the limit, so for this change to occur in their eyes isn't completely without merit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik

Also how did that mobster manage to smuggle in a gun to a courtroom? (That conveniently jams when pulled on Dent.)

Gotham is a city plagued by corruption with no area of industry or service immune to being paid off or compromised (something which the Joker refers to later on). The jarring of the gun however is admittedly convenient. Again though, I don't see this being completely detrimental to the success of the film.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik

Also when Batman jumps out the window to save Rachel and they somehow survive such a fall so easily...he leaves Joker in a party full of guests he was already about to start torturing in order to find out where Dent was...

The Joker's a smart man with long term plays. The longer he stays in a confined space, the greater the chance he would have faced in being arrested / taken down etc. Batman had pretty much foiled his attempt to capture Dent by turning up. He would be on a hiding to nothing sticking around any longer.

As Dirk Miggler says, the whole point is suspension of disbelief. You either go with it, or you don't. The criticisms mentioned in the posts before are from those who clearly didn't & in my view are based more on nitpicking minor plot details rather than the faults of the film itself.

And Qwerty, I like your reasonings. I should just not think about it and I'll find the films clever?

That sounds awfully like the very smug thing Will Self said about Inception.

I never said you shouldn't think about it, I'm just saying that folks criticisms of TDK & so forth seem to be based on a biased prejudice over Nolan choosing to go with specific tone that is a little unusual for a big budget film / comic book adaptation & that they're enraged people have dared to declare some of the ideas in these "popcorn flicks" being intelligent or having depth.